From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] utimensat() non-conformances and fixes [v3] Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:32:07 -0600 Message-ID: <20080530193207.GB28074@parisc-linux.org> References: <482D4665.4050401@gmail.com> <48401E7E.9090304@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org, drepper-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:22:30PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > For 2) you can just use permission() instead of vfs_permission() which > is exactly the same in this case (and consolidated into a common > function later in the vfs-cleanups tree). Miklos, don't delude people into thinking the vfs-cleanups tree is ever going to get merged in its current state. Al's NAKed the path_* stuff, Christoph's NAKed it too. Ignoring them and putting up a VFS tree of your own is not going to help matters. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html